Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#11

[Katody]

That angry, seething, raging Meredith somehow doesn't ring true to me. Just saying.

 

[aa9511]

It would be demolished in court faster than you can say "Mignini is an old pervert". No testimony from sister or British girls about any tension. Than we're back to the usual lack of credible timeline or forensic evidence.

bbm

Do you think someone who stabs another person to death will require a certain point of "irritation" to be reached before they do it? Is it a planned thing, such as - okay, if she continues this behavior for 47 days, then I'll do it? No wait, 48 1/2 days. I'll let it go for now...but at the 48 1/2 mark....all bets are off.

Or is it more that the people who do such things already have an erratic personality? I'm not saying all erratic people are murderers, I'm saying most murderers will have some personality disorder. So we cannot expect them to act like normal people do in situations.

Perhaps some situation occured where you or I or someone else would not have reacted the way she did, putting it mildly.

 

[aa9511]

But we are saying the same thing :giggle: We are both saying that Amanda took the rent money as a "staged prank" , and perhaps almost a pathetic way to get Meredith's love and attention, as she did with her Dad. And then Meredith blows up, and now the humiliation is beyond bearing. Aren't we arguing the same theory, aa9511?

Oh, sorry, no I wasn't talking about stealing of rent money. I am not sure if that was the prank. I guess I was saying that it might not have been a pre-planned prank....something might have happened "in the moment" at the cottage. Maybe not necessarily prank, maybe teasing. Like the scenario I discussed a few posts upthread - they want Meredith to join them, Meredith doesn't want to, they then begin to tease her and annoy her and generally pester her, to which Meredith becomes more and more agitated, and it esclatates like that. It would have been more of like a general "annoying" like, for example, pulling out the cushions under her father. I guess same thing as prank, just not so pre-planned. More of a "prank in the moment," teasing. The goal would still be the same - get attention with something "fun" and also kind of "get at" the person at the same time - like you said, passive-aggressive.

 

[Katody]

bbm

Do you think someone who stabs another person to death will require a certain point of "irritation" to be reached before they do it? Is it a planned thing, such as - okay, if she continues this behavior for 47 days, then I'll do it? No wait, 48 1/2 days. I'll let it go for now...but at the 48 1/2 mark....all bets are off.

Or is it more that the people who do such things already have an erratic personality? I'm not saying all erratic people are murderers, I'm saying most murderers will have some personality disorder. So we cannot expect them to act like normal people do in situations.

Perhaps some situation occured where you or I or someone else would not have reacted the way she did, putting it mildly.

You can replace the motive with mental illness but where is the evidence of the illness?

 

[quesarita]

That angry, seething, raging Meredith somehow doesn't ring true to me. Just saying.

What also rings false to me, is the prankster becoming enraged when the prankee reacts angrily. I had a friend in high school who loved to pull pranks, and I vividly remember her laughing harder and harder the angrier I became (at her prank on me).

She's still alive and we're still friends and still remember a couple of those situations. She did not get upset that I was unhappy with the prank - quite the opposite. My experience only.

 

[SMK]

That's what I'm talking about. Manipulative, sociopath devoid of conscience, always calculating his options.
Why would he lost his head and kill and rape in front of witnesses?

:furious: :furious:

 

[SMK]

What also rings false to me, is the prankster becoming enraged when the prankee reacts angrily. I had a friend in high school who loved to pull pranks, and I vividly remember her laughing harder and harder the angrier I became (at her prank on me).

She's still alive and we're still friends and still remember a couple of those situations. She did not get upset that I was unhappy with the prank - quite the opposite. My experience only.

Well, you knew a very well-adjusted prankster. But I can well imagine the humiliation and horror that might be evoked in another type, if their prank was not well-received....

 

[SMK]

Oh, sorry, no I wasn't talking about stealing of rent money. I am not sure if that was the prank. I guess I was saying that it might not have been a pre-planned prank....something might have happened "in the moment" at the cottage. Maybe not necessarily prank, maybe teasing. Like the scenario I discussed a few posts upthread - they want Meredith to join them, Meredith doesn't want to, they then begin to tease her and annoy her and generally pester her, to which Meredith becomes more and more agitated, and it esclatates like that. It would have been more of like a general "annoying" like, for example, pulling out the cushions under her father. I guess same thing as prank, just not so pre-planned. More of a "prank in the moment," teasing. The goal would still be the same - get attention with something "fun" and also kind of "get at" the person at the same time - like you said, passive-aggressive.

Oh, OK - but yes, although the scenarios are slightly divergent, the psychology and unfolding is the same. This prank thing with Amanda - what she admitted to on her blog, and the stuff I found in the Burleigh book about her pranking her Dad - has been very enlightening.

 

[SMK]

Tell Crini to read on here - he would get a lot of answers.

:waitasec: .............

 

[Myvice]

Excellent points.

It is eerie, in a way, that an off-hand comment of Amanda's has actually shone a light where there was always nothing but darkness......Really uncanny.

Maybe as more and more people are reading up on the trial and not just one interpretation, questions are coming out.

Apparently, others are starting to see the inconsistencies.

Even though the comment may not have come from someone that took part in the prank, it's obvious that someone that was there thought it was a strange coincidence and began thinking and talking about it.

 

[aa9511]

Excellent points.

It is eerie, in a way, that an off-hand comment of Amanda's has actually shone a light where there was always nothing but darkness......Really uncanny.

Oh SMK, also listen to this - why did Amanda feel the need to respond to/address it? Perhaps because she is sensitive to this issue of the burglary prank, because she knows that that is where she came up with the idea of the "staged burglary" in this case. This is like, just pattern after pattern. Remember the discussion couple of weeks back on the thread re: why would she do things like, alert Filomena to the cottage, instead of going off to the town they were supposed to go to? And I wrote long posts about the prism of her perception, and how we could not understand why she did things because we were looking at her from the outside, and she was acting within the inside, from her own prism of her conciousness of guilt.

I feel like it is deja-vu again regarding this issue of why did she address/confirm this burglary-prank issue, instead of, like Katody suggested, just not saying anything about it?

I believe it has to do with her conciousness of guilt. IMO, b/c she knows the burglary she staged after Meredith's murder is drawn from this burglary prank experience.

 

[aa9511]

At the risk of starting another internet rumor, here's one of the funnier passages:

"But I am convinced that if I would end up back in prison.'s success, the 'I lived on my skin. They accused me of having done the wheel of the interrogation at the police station in the evening, have interpreted as evidence of my laughter. I still wonder how it happened. Though I had submitted to the police station naked and dancing this did not mean that I was a murderer"

LOL! :floorlaugh:

"wheel of the interrogation", to name one!!

 

[Katody]

Maybe as more and more people are reading up on the trial and not just one interpretation, questions are coming out.

Apparently, others are starting to see the inconsistencies.

What inconsistencies?

Even though the comment may not have come from someone that took part in the prank, it's obvious that someone that was there thought it was a strange coincidence and began thinking and talking about it.

Not that obvious. What's obvious is the story about the prank was known much earlier. Someone who wasn't there misremembered it and wrote a single anonymous comment.

 

[SMK]

Oh SMK, also listen to this - why did Amanda feel the need to respond to/address it? Perhaps because she is sensitive to this issue of the burglary prank, because she knows that that is where she came up with the idea of the "staged burglary" in this case. This is like, just pattern after pattern. Remember the discussion couple of weeks back on the thread re: why would she do things like, alert Filomena to the cottage, instead of going off to the town they were supposed to go to? And I wrote long posts about the prism of her perception, and how we could not understand why she did things because we were looking at her from the outside, and she was acting within the inside, from her own prism of her conciousness of guilt.

I feel like it is deja-vu again regarding this issue of why did she address/confirm this burglary-prank issue, instead of, like Katody suggested, just not saying anything about it?

I believe it has to do with her conciousness of guilt. IMO, b/c she knows the burglary she staged after Meredith's murder is drawn from this burglary prank experience.

Yes. Up until now, I wasn't exactly sure about what you were saying; I agreed with it but could not sense it first hand, myself - but this incident on her blog has made a believer of me. You were spot on, aa9511 - kuddos :winner::winkkiss:

 

[SMK]

What inconsistencies?





Not that obvious. What's obvious is the story about the prank was known much earlier. Someone who wasn't there misremembered it and wrote a single anonymous comment.

:furious: :furious:

 

[Amber29]

No, I actually think it would be dumb to take them. Where would they have put them? Thrown them out with the phones? That would actually confirm more than it was a staged burglary, because the valuable things (laptops), the burglar threw out! Hidden them at RS house? Thrown them out somewhere where they is risk of them being found?

I agree IMO a real burglar would've taken the laptops. I mean there was one IN the first room he came into and he didn't even leave the room with it. Why would a real burglar not take the laptop with him when he left the room, maybe prepare a sort of pile of stuff he wants or was he to go in each room more than once I wonder?

OTOH it makes total sense why a stager wouldn't take a laptop they would need to dispose of and yes I agree about RSs statement to 112 of nothing's been taken.

 

[aa9511]

Read up about his behavior when they caught him in Milan with stolen goods. I used calculating in the sense of estimating the situation an his chances at the moment, not in sense of planning ahead ( this is not what he's doing). His adoptive family kicked him out for lying.

He presented himself as cunning liar and manipulator throughout this whole case, but that's another story. Always fine tuning his "date" fairytale. I remember J. Kercher begging him to come clean and finally tell the truth. Didn't happen.

But wouldn't he have not been caught at all for the robberies if he had not been so dumb?

Staying at cooking a meal at a house you are in without consent, that is pretty dumb to me.

"Cunning liar" - but none of us remotely believe his story! I don't think anyone does! It's just that he gets away with it because it's his "right" not to say anything or tell the truth - after all, you are the one who doesn't like "pressure interrogations."

Manipulative - yes, but it is a successful manipulation? As I said, no one believe him. No one beleves his "story." We are just stuck with it.

 

[Katody]

Yes. Up until now, I wasn't exactly sure about what you were saying; I agreed with it but could not sense it first hand, myself - but this incident on her blog has made a believer of me.

:scared:

 

[quesarita]

:furious: :furious:

I have to agree with Katody's comment; Amanda was responding to a comment on her website. I can't find your original post right now but I believe she was actually responding to a question from a commenter. She seems to be pretty responsive on her blog in that way.

So, was she answering the question because she had a sensation of guilt from "staging" after the murder, or because she answers most questions on her blog?

Personally, I don't see the evidence of staging, so I don't see the relevance either, or the entire scenario based on pranks leading to anger leading to murder.

 

[aa9511]

That's what I'm talking about. Manipulative, sociopath devoid of conscience, always calculating his options.
Why would he lost his head and kill and rape in front of witnesses?[/QUOTE]

In lone-wolf, how did he know Amanda wouldn't walk in at any moment during the assault and murder?